[Sigia-l] Findability

[Chris Chandler]

"Derek R" wrote:


> Chris/bub wrote:
> >| I'm immediately suspicious of those
> >| who would make claims upon my "duty."
> >| My duty is to myself and my family first,
> >| and, in the context of my work, to my
> >| employer second.
>
>
> I think this is where a fundamental difference of 'how we view the
> world' occurs between us -- Your order of importance places as #1- your
> immediate family and #2- your immediate employer.


Could you first tell me what kind of person you are? What's your order of importance? Where do you place yourself and
your family? (do you have kids btw? that tends to skew the importance of family I think)


> Where does that leave
> the rest of us?


In what context (that's the word you seem to have missed in my original statement)? To say my first duty is to myself
does not mean I have no ethics -- quite the contrary in fact.



> It would seem your the type of person who would sell arsenic-sprayed
> materials to our children's schools or market cigarettes to our
> pre-teens a long as the pay ($$$) is good.


I sincerely hope that someday you'll learn that such inflammatory and frankly asinine comments reflect very poorly on
your own character, and are an embarrassment to the good thinking and contributions you've made.


> You see Chris (or bub, if you prefer), the people, for instance, who
> built the Transcontinental Railroad (1869) took immense pride in their
> work. They *knew* they were transforming the landscape. To them it was a
> *historical event in transportation* -- which meant, Chris/bub, that
> their efforts served a greater-good than just that of their immediate
> family or employer.


Stop lying! [sic] At the very best this twisted logic might represent that of the robber barons who paid little more
than slave wages to (mostly immigrant) desperately poor workers. I don't know why, but I expected more from you than an
ahistorical prelapsarian homily.



> I can say with confidence, that IF you hold *no* ethical boundary and
> would place *nothing* above the almighty dollar and what it can afford
> yourself *personally* (i.e. you and your immediate family) you are not
> good a candidate for our future -- for, as you have indicated, you will
> *sell us out* as quickly as you can sign the papers.


I'm glad you capitalized the "IF" because since your initial premise is false, the rest of your ranting is tilting at
windmills. My duty to myself has nothing to do with money -- now it is true that my duty to my son involves support,
which implies, but is not nearly limited to money. Your vilifying of me simply demonstrates the lack of subtlety I
referred to in my first reply.



> >| you make me laugh out loud. Thanks.


Derek -- it is intellectually dishonest of you to alter what I wrote and pretend it is a quote. This is much worse than
calling me names or burning in effigy the straw man you've attempted to build in my image.



> You make me sick.



See, this is what I was getting at before about being suspicious of people who make claims on my duty, (which goes
double for people who claim such a high ethical standard for themselves while denying it to others) -- challenge them
even a little and they're ready to ship you out to be "re-educated."

I hold myself to quite a high personal standard, and a cornerstone of that standard is to not go around telling others
how horribly unethical they are.



> >| I'm not impressed...
> >| show me a single example of a category-less
> >| 'something' that provided for greater 'utility,
> >| relevance and pleasure' than a similar
> >| category-ed 'something' in the context of
> >| IA work
>
> I have already provided this example -->
> http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/0202/0035.html
> but I will provide it again:


Thanks for the link, I confess to not being instantly familiar with the entirety of your "promiscuous authorship."


> <quote on 'Napster'>

<snip>

Napster is a fine illustration of what you're talking about, where, (to paraphrase Daniel Drop's paraphrase of you) the
"thing in itself" is what is on display.

But this example, and your rapturous treatise on the general superiority of P2P systems doesn't close the door on this
debate. Not by a long shot.

For one thing, as Eric Scheid points out, Napster was pretty much limited to "known item" searching -- if I know exactly
what I'm looking for, terrific, but if not... well, you gotta go somewhere else.

Most (every?) study I've ever seen on the use of online library systems shows a disproportionate number of users begin
(and end) with subject searches. This is reality - given the choice between an exhaustive catalog of information on the
"things in themselves" most people organize their searches using categories and key words (itself a "meta" scheme)


The difficulties in creating subject (category) interfaces that reveal more than they obscure are quite well understood
in the field of information science -- which is why I think many people are left scratching their heads when you charge
into the room in rusty armor crying out that the giant (windmill) outside is threatening the integrity of the
internet -- and include a deep and nuanced  appreciation of the practical, philosophical AND political dimensions. [To
Mr. Drop's point about classifying, "suicide bombing" or say the Vietnam ['American'] War.

So, the question back to you is, is there an example of a "thing in itself" scheme/interface/whatever that supports
browsing?

I can think of one, but you're not going to like it, as it's territory you and I have gone around before:
http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/0202/0105.html


I also question your implied, but not substantiated position that the Napster interface provided more "relevance,
utility or pleasure" (and passion) than other music interfaces -- say, for the sake of the previous point, amazon.com's
music searches -- since it seems to me that most if not all of the "relevance, utility and pleasure" of Napster involved
the ability to get stuff for free. How much "relevance, utility, and pleasure" is there in the application now that you
have to pay? (I know money and paying are touchy subjects with you, and I'm sure you're right that people shouldn't
consider such things, but I hope you'll see my point here anyway)

By the way, I feel I would be remiss at this point not to mention the two subjects NOT in your reply. 1) Any
consideration of my (rather mundane I know) example of increasing findability/utility/relevance/pleasure in my own work;
and 2) Any defense of your naive "semantic solution" to the problems we all face. Needless to say, I will understand if
you don't want to bring these up again.

Plenty of stuff still to talk about, even if we aren't chums!!!

-cc


PS You were right about one thing -- I have no idea what "restoring the category of the person" means, especially since
you first claimed the P2P revolution was all about no categories...